Corporate entrepreneurship and innovation part 1 : the missing link

Purpose – To examine the literature on corporate entrepreneurship and innovation and to develop a combined definition of these two terms. Moreover, the literature is used to construct a holistic model that seeks to explain the links between corporate entrepreneurial activity and the innovation process. Design/methodology/approach – A number of published works on entrepreneurship and innovation are critiqued. The findings from this literature review are used to develop a framework illustrating the relationships between the corporate entrepreneur and the innovation process. Findings – The paper presents a combined definition of corporate entrepreneurship and innovation and, from the literature review, concludes that previous models on entrepreneurship and innovation are fragmented because there is little exploration on the relationships and dynamics between these two factors. A framework of corporate entrepreneurship and innovation is constructed by synthesising the information gathered from previous literature. This model shows that there are missing links between the entrepreneur and the innovation process. The paper discusses three factors that may explain both the dynamics and the relationships between the entrepreneur and the innovation process. These are entrepreneurial attitudes, vision and actions. Originality/value – This paper fulfils an identified gap in the literature, namely the lack of investigation into the links between the corporate entrepreneur and the innovation process, and suggests three factors that could be used to explain this gap. Part 2 of this paper will present a new holistic model of corporate entrepreneurship and innovation that illustrates the relationships between these two areas in more detail.

Corporate entrepreneurship and innovation part 2 : a role- and process-based approach

Purpose – To extend the discussion held in part 1, and develop a two-tier fifth-generation model of corporate entrepreneurship and innovation. Design/methodology/approach – The components that have been synthesized from a review of the literature in Part 1 are extended using evidence from the literature. These components are used to construct a two-tier model of corporate entrepreneurship and innovation; a macro model which presents the high-level environmental drivers of innovation and a micro model that discusses the contextual factors that underpin the corporate entrepreneurship and innovation process. Findings – From the analysis conducted in part 1 it is evident that there is a strong relationship between the role of the corporate entrepreneur and the innovation process. It is suggested that by separating the corporate entrepreneur from the innovation process previous models have been overly reductionist in their construction, and their utility has, as a consequence, been severely constrained. The study therefore combines the role and activities of the entrepreneur with the innovation process into a unified framework. In doing so the paper develops a two-tier fifth-generation model of corporate entrepreneurship and innovation. The final sections of the paper present the model's implications for management and suggestions for further research. Originality/value – This paper fulfils an identified gap in the literature, namely the development of a new holistic model of corporate entrepreneurship and innovation, which illustrates the environmental and contextual relationships between the corporate entrepreneur and the innovation process.

Managing a portfolio of corporate venture units : challenges in achieving within-unit focus and between-unit coordination

Principal Topic: There is increasing recognition that the organizational configurations of corporate venture units should depend on the types of ventures the unit seeks to develop (Burgelman, 1984; Hill and Birkinshaw, 2008). Distinction have been made between internal and external as well as exploitative versus explorative ventures (Hill and Birkinshaw, 2008; Narayan et al., 2009; Schildt et al., 2005). Assuming that firms do not want to limit themselves to a single type of venture, but rather employ a portfolio of ventures, the logical consequence is that firms should employ multiple corporate venture units. Each venture unit tailor-made for the type of venture it seeks to develop. Surprisingly, there is limited attention in the literature for the challenges of managing multiple corporate venture units in a single firm. Maintaining multiple venture units within one firm provides easier access to funding for new ideas (Hamel, 1999). It allows for freedom and flexibility to tie the organizational systems (Rice et al., 2000), autonomy (Hill and Rothaermel, 2003), and involvement of management (Day, 1994; Wadwha and Kotha, 2006) to the requirements of the individual ventures. Yet, the strategic objectives of a venture may change when uncertainty around the venture is resolved (Burgelman, 1984). For example, firms may decide to spin-in external ventures (Chesbrough, 2002) or spun-out ventures that prove strategically unimportant (Burgelman, 1984). This suggests that ventures might need to be transferred between venture units, e.g. from a more internally-driven corporate venture division to a corporate venture capital unit. Several studies suggested that ventures require different managerial skills across their phase of development (Desouza et al., 2007; O'Connor and Ayers, 2005; Kazanjian and Drazin, 1990; Westerman et al., 2006). To facilitate effective transfer between venture units and manage the overall venturing process, it is important that firms set up and manage integrative linkages. Integrative linkages provide synergies and coordination between differentiated units (Lawrence and Lorsch, 1967). Prior findings pointed to the important role of senior management (Westerman et al., 2006; Gilbert, 2006) and a shared organizational vision (Burgers et al., 2009) to coordinate venture units with mainstream businesses. We will draw on these literatures to investigate the key question of how to integratively manage multiple venture units. ---------- Methodology/Key Propositions: In order to seek an answer to the research question, we employ a case study approach that provides unique insights into how firms can break up their venturing process. We selected three Fortune 500 companies that employ multiple venturing units, IBM, Royal Dutch/ Shell and Nokia, and investigated and compared their approaches. It was important that the case companies somewhat differed in the type of venture units they employed as well as the way they integrate and coordinate their venture units. The data are based on extensive interviews and a variety of internal and external company documents to triangulate our findings (Eisenhardt, 1989). The key proposition of the article is that firms can best manage their multiple venture units through an ambidextrous design of loosely coupled units. This provides venture units with sufficient flexibility to employ organizational configurations that best support the type of venture they seek to develop, as well as provides sufficient integration to facilitate smooth transfer of ventures between venture units. Based on the case findings, we develop a generic framework for a new way of managing the venturing process through multiple corporate venture units. ---------- Results and Implications: One of our main findings is that these firms tend to organize their venture units according to phases in the venture development process. That is, they tend to have venture units aimed at incubation of venture ideas as well as units aimed more at the commercialization of ventures into a new business unit for the firm or a start-up. The companies in our case studies tended to coordinate venture units through integrative management skills or a coordinative venture unit that spanned multiple phases. We believe this paper makes two significant contributions. First, we extend prior venturing literature by addressing how firms manage a portfolio of venture units, each achieving different strategic objectives. Second, our framework provides recommendations on how firms should manage such an approach towards venturing. This helps to increase the likelihood of success of their venturing programs.

Who is the corporate entrepreneur? Insights from opportunity discovery and Creation Theory

Recent research has begun to address and even compare nascent entrepreneurship and nascent corporate entrepreneurship. An opportunity based view holds great potential to integrate both streams of research, but also presents challenges in how we define corporate entrepreneurship. We extend (corporate) entrepreneurship literature to the opportunity identification phase by providing a framework to classify different types of corporate entrepreneurship. Through analysis of a large dataset on nascent (corporate) entrepreneurship (PSEDII) we show that these corporate entrepreneurs differ largely from each other in terms of human capital. Prior studies have indicated that independent and corporate entrepreneurs pursue different types of opportunities and utilize different strategies. Our findings from the opportunity identification phase challenge those differences and seem to indicate a difference between the opportunities corporate entrepreneurs identify versus the opportunities they exploit.

Entrepreneurship in the public sector : new possibilities?

Previous research has described potential roles for entrepreneurs in public sector organisations as either closely related to corporate entrepreneurship, or as normative prescriptions regarding the importance of entrepreneurship in the public sector (Ireland, Covin & Kuratko, 2009: Morris & Jones, 1999). While some might argue that entrepreneurship in the public sector context is an oxymoron, recent studies have demonstrated that entrepreneurship in the public sector is alive and well (Currie, Humphreys, Ucbasaran & McManus 2008; Kim, 2010). Entrepreneurship in the public sector can take many forms and generate a range of benefits but to date less attention has been given to the potential to generate new public value (Moore, 1995). The purpose of this paper is to increase our knowledge and understanding of the types of strategies and activities the public sector is using to capture initiative, create new public value, and generate new economic activity for the benefit of multiple stakeholders. This paper explores entrepreneurship in one public sector context. Findings indicate that entrepreneurship and commercialisation is more likely to be encouraged in contexts where contestability in develop and exploit capabilities.

Corporate Venture Capital: How established firms use external resources to create new competencies

This Doctoral Dissertation is triggered by an emergent trend: firms are increasingly referring to investments in corporate venture capital (CVC) as means to create new competencies and foster the search for competitive advantage through the use of external resources. CVC is generally defined as the practice by non-financial firms of placing equity investments in entrepreneurial companies. Thus, CVC can be interpreted (i) as a key component of corporate entrepreneurship - acts of organizational creation, renewal, or innovation that occur within or outside an existing organization– and (ii) as a particular form of venture capital (VC) investment where the investor is not a traditional and financial institution, but an established corporation. My Dissertation, thus, simultaneously refers to two streams of research: corporate strategy and venture capital. In particular, I directed my attention to three topics of particular relevance for better understanding the role of CVC. In the first study, I moved from the consideration that competitive environments with rapid technological changes increasingly force established corporations to access knowledge from external sources. Firms, thus, extensively engage in external business development activities through different forms of collaboration with partners. While the underlying process common to these mechanisms is one of knowledge access, they are substantially different. The aim of the first study is to figure out how corporations choose among CVC, alliance, joint venture and acquisition. I addressed this issue adopting a multi-theoretical framework where the resource-based view and real options theory are integrated. While the first study mainly looked into the use of external resources for corporate growth, in the second work, I combined an internal and an external perspective to figure out the relationship between CVC investments (exploiting external resources) and a more traditional strategy to create competitive advantage, that is, corporate diversification (based on internal resources). Adopting an explorative lens, I investigated how these different modes to renew corporate current capabilities interact to each other. More precisely, is CVC complementary or substitute to corporate diversification? Finally, the third study focused on the more general field of VC to investigate (i) how VC firms evaluate the patent portfolios of their potential investee companies and (ii) whether the ability to evaluate technology and intellectual property varies depending on the type of investors, in particular for what concern the distinction between specialized versus generalist VCs and independent versus corporate VCs. This topic is motivated by two observations. First, it is not clear yet which determinants of patent value are primarily considered by VCs in their investment decisions. Second, VCs are not all alike in terms of technological experiences and these differences need to be taken into account.

How environmental and organizational complexity affects opportunity recognition in development projects

New product development projects are experiencing increasing internal and external project complexity. Complexity leadership theory proposes that external complexity requires adaptive and enabling leadership, which facilitates opportunity recognition (OR). We ask whether internal complexity also requires OR for increased adaptability. We extend a model of EO and OR to conclude that internal complexity may require more careful OR. This means that leaders of technically or structurally complex projects need to evaluate opportunities more carefully than those in projects with external or technological complexity.